OK, I can’t sit here and read this without replying.
Here is the reply someone gave on another forum, and it makes sense to me and what I thought would maybe happen.INSERT:
When a propeller blade goes supersonic, it produces a supersonic compression zone (shockwave) just in front of it. That shockwave then travels over the propeller airfoil (from leading edge to trailing edge at any point along the chord of the propeller) when the propeller is moving (rotationally) faster than the shockwave. Additionally, if the aircraft continues to accelerate to the point that the wings go supersonic, the propeller is subjected to a second shockwave – that of the air rushing at it from IN FRONT of the aircraft. This “longitidunal-aspect” shockwave is separate from the “rotational-aspect” shockwave that is created by the rotation of the propeller blade through the plane of the propeller disk.
A designer can overcome the drag from the rotational-aspect shockwave simply by increasing the propeller RPM at the moment the leading edge goes supersonic. What is extremely hard to overcome is the longitidunal aspect shockwave that is hitting the “top” surface of the propeller airfoil (i.e., that air which is coming directly at the front of the engine, 90-degrees to the plane of the propeller blade rotation.) When THAT shockwave encounters the rotational-aspect shockwave somewhere along the “top” of the propeller airfoil, the resultant interaction creates some very tricky, if possibly unmanageable, forces on the air the propeller is trying to push aft.
This interaction of two shockwaves colliding with each other along the “top” of the propeller airfoil produces many different effects, one of them being a sudden “overpressure zone”. That zone spreads from it’s initial start point along the airfoil chord all the way to the trailing edge of the propeller, where it meets the high-pressure zone from the “bottom” side of the airfoil. Extreme turbulence at this juncture then creates high-low-high pressure zones at the aft edge of the propeller, which then propogate somewhat forward onto the “top” of the propeller airfoil.
These high-low-high pressure zones then set up harmonic vibrations along the propeller airfoil chord that can be so great as to totally destroy the propeller in seconds. This is not exactly the same as what was happening when all the Lockheed Electras were crashing during the late ’50’s and early ’60’s, but it is close. The propellers on those aircraft actually “went supersonic” in two separate axis (longitudinal to the aircraft fuselage, and rotational to the plane of the propeller disk). The props / engines / engine mounts / wings were not designed to handle the ensuing harmonic vibrations, so things flew apart.
I think the Iranian AF would like your designs though.
I think you have pretty good insert what happens when the shock wave and toughness of the bird haven’t been considered enough.
If the supersonic flight ( prop or wing or whatever ) would not be possible Chuck would have never broken the sound barrier in the first place.
Have you seen how the propellor blades look like when the AC flies 840 km/h….try to find the F8F RARE BEAR data somewhere.
The blades are almost 90 degs to the plane…ie nearly parallel to where the bird is moving.
This is not the smallest AC around. As a fighter…maybe.
Do you really understand aerodynamics and physics? BTW when you say Dassault Systems I’m assuming Solidworks. If so I’m still confused at your scaling.
Yes I actually do understand physics and therefore confused of the lame results we have in aviation generally. Do you mean by scaling the small size of my designs that result immense power to weight ratio in a neat aerodynamical package ?!
Good grief!
No.
Why not ? No one ever tried it with a plane that indicates to be able to do it.
TU-95 has only 0.145 hp/kg and goes much faster than the Rare Bear with 1/1 ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
So clean transonic aerodynamics in TU-95/RB case result 7.6 times better result ( in power to weight ratio wise ) !
Also TU-95 has 59200 hp, but only 55.6 m2 frontal area…so 1065 hp/m2…and very slim package ( with lotsa wetted area )…but heavy.
Gear positions added.
If you have multiple times more power to weight ratio..than in a 920 km/h moving TU-95…shouldn’t you be able to go supersonic in a prop plane ?
How good a stealth plane a fast moving small prop plane could be ?
This can be fitted with plethora of motoguns.
Here is the only V-8 engine that I found as a side view fitted in. My rear engined P-51H is starting to look like a P-63 King Cobra…miniature.
751 hp LQ9 of 6 litres.
A piston engine fighter against the Bear still equipt with turrets would not last long.
If it had four wing cannons and could get close enough for one good pass, it could do a world of harm to U.S. planes now without gun defense.
What where…this small fighter ? It has a Dillon M134 gun with 4000 rpm.
It is a bit short in power to beat the J-29 specs..this Supa Pony !
How stealth would a small piston plane with a small motor cannon be for policing the air space ?
Reclining the seat further we can make a 50% sized P-51H….Bearcat can be made into 38% size !
Simililar to this could be handy; http://www.zvezda-npp.ru/engl/sks-94.html
the little Bushby Mustang always appealed to me , they do get along quite well on 115 hp or so
http://www.mustangaero.com/images/Midget%20Mustang/M-1a/Bushby%20N7009S%202.JPG
I love it too..I think it is called Midget Mustang !
Here with retracts !
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepMidgetMustang.html
It actually measures slightly bigger than my 1200 hp bigger engined Supa Pony ( supa cause it is supa sonic in dive ). :rolleyes:
Here is Pond Racer in scale ( wiki has wrong data ).
I just figured this PÖHÄKKÄ aka Super Pony has ½ the frontal of Tsunami..but just 1/3 of the wetted area !
Any one wanna fund it ?
Some other racers !